"The biggest barrier to leftism in America is that unlike USSR in America leftism can’t simply step in and take over economics. Capitalism is too strong, too earthy and too real. Capitalism will never allow itself to be overtaken by this entropy. Unlike in Russia where capitalism had just barely begun to start to form just a little bit when leftism arrived, so it was easy for leftism to supplant economics there. This gave leftism many more centuries of “existence” as it slowly consumed all economic reality in Russia. The same is happening to China and China is all but totally consumed already now but has managed a clever trick to shift much of this loss of economic reality to America via China enslaving its own people to slave labor and then using the massive differential therein when it comes to that vs western work to shift trillions of dollars of debt into America. This debt is really Chinese debt, ie theft of value, but America bought it up. Theft of value (debt) that America then uses to prop up a globalist system and allow the entropy to keep existing. China is one massive value sucking machine, a huge vampire upon its own billion people, but it managed to export enough of that pure lack to America and thus delayed its own eventual USSR style collapse."

"Meanwhile America (capitalism) can actually handle and make some use of this pure lack, but not forever. It only does so because the decisions to be this way were made by globalists who want to keep the configuration going for their own purposes. Globalists are chrony capitalists similar to the Chinese. I bet they’re hoping for America and Europe to collapse so that the globalist center can move to China, it’s natural home. Then China will become a spider with its threads all around the world, sucking in value-theft almost without limit. Probably the home base and true birth of 1984-style dystopian NWO will be in China. But only if they can succeed in dissolving capitalism, and for that they really need the leftist entropy to take over actual economic reality in America. I cannot see that actually happening."

"Ideology is a negative phenomenon and has no positive being, so it must vampirize upon other existing things that actually do have positive being, like economics or war or human subjectivity. Since money is nothing more than a symbolic attraction of value made, and leftism is nothing more than a pure negativity excess of entropic tendency a la value theft, money and leftism are antithetical to one another on any level. This is also why the most far left wants to abolish money, because they instinctively know that if money exists then leftism will never win."

"It’s also funny that the modern leftists in politics are pushing to import so many tens and hundreds of millions of people from the Middle East and Latin America while most of these people being imported are actually anti-leftist to the core in so far as they are “conservative” (earthy, reality-oriented or otherwise already consumed by an ideology such as religion and thus have no more room to be sucked into a new ideology). Ideology only spreads in a vacuum of itself, either that or it goes to war with another ideology. Since leftism has saturated the west with ideology now there is nowhere left for ideology to spread into, hence ideologies are now starting to war to one another for territory (for any existing substances they might move into for purposes of vampirism). I wonder when the term “conservative leftist” will become a thing, it shouldn’t be too far off now. That’s one key that will be sought to hold together the entire collapsing entropic movement by infecting the earth on an exponentially deeper level. But again I can’t see that actually doing anything but delaying the inevitable collapse of leftism in favor of the earth. Human being is earthy as fuck and therefore cool as a result."

It wasn't globalists originally who opened the gates to China for to become a source of slave labour. It was Nixon/Kissinger. Now some might say they were globalists, and they were in the sense that they always calculated in terms of the entire globe, but very much not in the modern globalist NWO sense. Reagan was ironically possibly the first serious president of this movement. They simply did it because they knew how powerful China, and China's will, could be and needed the counterbalance for Russia. But they were also not blind at all to the fact that they were creating a behemoth that would eventually have to be dealt with, and their attittude towards it was very much of being glad they could be responsible for improving the station of China and the Chinese people. For it has improved, vastly. This slave labour is still 100x better than the Maoist hell they had before.

So in this sense, I don't see the Chinese spider as a real threat. It is a good thing. The vampirism was the only way to fast-track them into the modern economy. As long as they are still understood as a threat and their communism as the enemy, they actually are very pragmatic folks and understand the negociations of power. They are a potential positive more than negative, they aren't the problem. Industrious motherfuckers, and deeply understand industry. And also thirsty for bling, the good kind, the capitalist kind.

The enemy is the actual globalists, who if you'll notice have now turned against China in a very creepy way.

Ideology is the enemy. Most people you can work with. You only really gotta hang mean bastards.

or could it be that there is a not too frequently visited (by philosophers) abyss of darker 'truths' lurking below man that takes a bit of sickness and madness to reach? i'd rather think that's nietzsche's condition granted him superpowers of insight instead of acting to thwart his ability to reason. much if his ideas stand firmly on their own regardless of whether or not he was sick when he formulated them. and, likewise, many of his ideas fall... but not because he was sick... unless we can attribute making such conceptual errors to some organic disease. but many more philosophers made the same mistakes without being sick... so such errors are probably due to the nature of the philosophical task itself rather than the particular philosopher per se.

but i sense that you want to get around nietzsche, which is fine, but there is only one way this can be done. you can't 'step around' him. there's no way. i've seen many a thinker try to do this and get obliterated. i make no exaggeration when i say he pwned the 19th century. so the only way to get past him is to go through him. you can't just ignore his work. you have to accept it and forge new truths from his basic premises. his work is like building materials that you can't not use, and if you are trying to build a philosophy without using these materials, it'll collapse, i promise you. i can't stress to you enough how important the moustache-man was, madam pandora.

What matters is that the US remain supreme and capitalistic, as your analyst also points out. I myself am slightly less optimistic of how wrapped up that struggle is, but I do think we have a winning hand.

promethean75 wrote:or could it be that there is a not too frequently visited (by philosophers) abyss of darker 'truths' lurking below man that takes a bit of sickness and madness to reach? i'd rather think that's nietzsche's condition granted him superpowers of insight instead of acting to thwart his ability to reason. much if his ideas stand firmly on their own regardless of whether or not he was sick when he formulated them. and, likewise, many of his ideas fall... but not because he was sick... unless we can attribute making such conceptual errors to some organic disease. but many more philosophers made the same mistakes without being sick... so such errors are probably due to the nature of the philosophical task itself rather than the particular philosopher per se.

but i sense that you want to get around nietzsche, which is fine, but there is only one way this can be done. you can't 'step around' him. there's no way. i've seen many a thinker try to do this and get obliterated. i make no exaggeration when i say he pwned the 19th century. so the only way to get past him is to go through him. you can't just ignore his work. you have to accept it and forge new truths from his basic premises. his work is like building materials that you can't not use, and if you are trying to build a philosophy without using these materials, it'll collapse, i promise you. i can't stress to you enough how important the moustache-man was, madam pandora.

Should ideas coming from a physically compromised brain (I don’t even mean necessarily Nietsche) be accepted without any reservations and despite the fact? This is a general question.

Avoiding an argument by instead drawing attention to the character of the person making it is literally the definition of ad hominem.

But there is of course the argument from fallacy, where a fallacy is legitimately pointed out to invalidate the argument, but the conclusion is still a correct one - just how you got there is dubious. Does Nietzsche's health of mind affect his writings? Probably quite significantly. But can his arguments still be addressed in and of themselves regardless of their author? Yes, absolutely. Would the arguments in themselves be more or less valid if another person made them? No.

Whilst the rest of the post points out a legitimate and interesting psychological tendency to put on the rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the origins of something that you currently support, the ad hominem example is a logically invalid one even though your central point about rose-tinted glasses applying to Nietzsche's personal life is a valid one.

Ironically, perhaps, Nietzsche's state of mind seemed to somewhat go well with getting under the skin of a lot of issues where people had historically been putting on their rose-tinted glass - such as with art for art's sake, the Socratic method, and obviously Christianity - to name just a few things. So in criticising Nietzsche as part of your point here, you're actually criticising a proponent of the style of your criticism. Just something slightly amusing that I thought I'd point out

you have to ask me this now? you need to get to me a little sooner, dude, because i get burned out on serious posting in a matter of minutes, these days. his defense of aristocracy, his conception of the state, his criteria for the overman, his analysis of darwinism, his views on women, his taking kant for granted, his WTP metaphysics, his infatuation with heraclitus, his dissing of spinoza (on one occasion), his self-deprecating in front of that russian hottie lou salome, his scolding schopenhaur for blasting on hegel, his failure to meet stirner and pay proper homage to the original gangsta, and his unwarranted dismissal of coffee.... to name a few things.

but he got far more right than he got wrong, and he's still a beast because of that fact.

My philosophy teacher once told me a letter of Nietzsche's had been found or something where he mentions Kierkeggard and how he seems interesting, but appearently it was shortly before he lost it, but potentially he would have ended up meeting up. Don't know if that wins him any points.

I think of Stirner as a bit of a joke. A lot of fascile points. Not a lot of depth there.

Fuck it, Imma say it. I think you would LIKE to be a Stirnerian nihilist, because of the feeling of safety, but have despite yourself found yourself face to face with the beast. Cracking jokes is an honourable response, but it doesn't crack through like Nietzsche did, says I.

Kierkeggard also broke through in his way. He was a bit of a hippie at heart. I like that guy. A lot of people don't catch his vast arrogance.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:i suppose at the bottom of this question is: can there be a Nietzshce for the people?

Both my grandfathers were hard Communists and still I inherited from both of them a copy of Zarathustra. No one who has any sense in his head disregards Nietzsche. That criterium runs through the entire ladder from the mud to the citadel.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:My philosophy teacher once told me a letter of Nietzsche's had been found or something where he mentions Kierkeggard and how he seems interesting, but appearently it was shortly before he lost it, but potentially he would have ended up meeting up. Don't know if that wins him any points.

I first felt oh no what a waste, that would have been too cool if that had happened - but then I thought maybe this was his way of getting to see Kierkegaard. Losing his wits - his military eye.